Was Burke Involved? # 4

[madeleine]

But she bled....doesn\t this mean it happened while she was still alive?

 

[madeleine]

Det. Arndt told Your Affiant that she personally observed Dr. John Meyer examine the vaginal and pubic areas of the deceased, Dr. Meyer stated that he observed numerous traces of a dark fiber.

Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.

In the presence of Det. Arndt, Det. Tom Trujillo of the Boulder Police Department, used a black florescent light the view the body including the pubic area of the victim in an attempt to observe the possible presence of semen or seminal fluid. (Your Affiant knows from previous experience and training that substances such as semen or seminal fluid, not visible to the unaided eye, may become visible when viewed under a black florescent light). Det. Arndt stated that she observed florescent areas of the upper inner and outer left thigh, as well as the upper and inner right thigh. Det. Arndt stated that her observations of the result of the black florescent light observation is consistent with the presence of semen or seminal fluid.

Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer swab these florescent areas. Dr. Meyer was also observed by Det. Arndt to obtain vaginal, oral and anal swabs from the child's body. (According to examination conducted at the Colorado Bureau of Investigations, no semen was located on the body, panties, or clothing of JonBenet Ramsey).

Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in the area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's public area having been wiped by a cloth.

-----------------------

we found out later that it wasn/t semen but blood

 

[Heymom]

But she bled....doesn\t this mean it happened while she was still alive?

Yes, it does. The strangulation was the last event in the series. Any bleeding after that was left over from when her heart was still beating.

 

[ThinkHard]

Why is it more likely to you that this was a real assault and not staging?

Yes it conflicts, that's why I said two people in discord. For example PR leaves JR to get something they need like the penknife or the tape/cord and when she returns he has already done it, she disagrees with that element of the staging and cleans it up, for her own reasons.

It's no less viable a scenario.

Staging is not necessarily about covering up prior abuse. It could be, and it could also be that one knows there has been prior abuse and the other doesn't know. With two stagers there are a myriad of possibilities, motives and personal limits. Another purpose of staging is to make this killer look as ruthless and monstrous as possible and divert suspicion from family. We do know that was their priority, that much is clear.

It's simple. Why stage an assault, only to clean up said staged assault? Who are you staging it for, if you then attempt to hide it? If your trying to make it look as ruthless as possible, then why clean her up after and redress her?

 

[madeleine]

I know how far fetched this sounds but what if that was indeed semen they found? I mean, how can I trust these people who helped cover this crime up. I am sure the DA office had control all over the place.
IIRC it was Bynum who claimed in one of the shows that he got a call saying the cops suspect JR of incest. JR changed the story saying HE got a call. BS

 

[ThinkHard]

Det. Arndt told Your Affiant that she personally observed Dr. John Meyer examine the vaginal and pubic areas of the deceased, Dr. Meyer stated that he observed numerous traces of a dark fiber.

Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.

In the presence of Det. Arndt, Det. Tom Trujillo of the Boulder Police Department, used a black florescent light the view the body including the pubic area of the victim in an attempt to observe the possible presence of semen or seminal fluid. (Your Affiant knows from previous experience and training that substances such as semen or seminal fluid, not visible to the unaided eye, may become visible when viewed under a black florescent light). Det. Arndt stated that she observed florescent areas of the upper inner and outer left thigh, as well as the upper and inner right thigh. Det. Arndt stated that her observations of the result of the black florescent light observation is consistent with the presence of semen or seminal fluid.

Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer swab these florescent areas. Dr. Meyer was also observed by Det. Arndt to obtain vaginal, oral and anal swabs from the child's body. (According to examination conducted at the Colorado Bureau of Investigations, no semen was located on the body, panties, or clothing of JonBenet Ramsey).

Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in the area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's public area having been wiped by a cloth.

-----------------------

we found out later that it wasn/t semen but blood

I believe there are other causes that can cause the black lights to glow. For example I think if you used some types of cleaners to clean off blood from the skin it might glow under black light. I could be mistaken.

 

[madeleine]

I think the 'cording' is simply 2 shoelaces. Both pieces measure 21 inches in length.

could be. I went back and checked the warrants. The cops were looking for missing drawstrings and shoestrings.

 

[madeleine]

I believe there are other causes that can cause the black lights to glow. For example I think if you used some types of cleaners to clean off blood from the skin it might glow under black light. I could be mistaken.

I had no idea. And I really can't recall where it was said that the tests on the swabs showed it was blood, maybe someone else knows.
If you are correct it could be that she wet herself and was cleaned with one of those wet wipes for babys-kids?

 

[johnjay]

Johnjay:

I saved answering your post until I had time to give it the answer it deserves. I’ll give you a link at the bottom to a post where I laid out how I think the major injuries occurred. But first, let me tell you what I feel are the important points that are sometimes either misinterpreted or given too little significance.

You’ve probably heard several insiders say something that is contradicted by what we can see in photographic evidence. Arndt, Smit, Wecht, and I-don’t-remember-who-all-else have said something about the cord having been “wrapped around her neck twice” or that she was “strangled twice.” But the autopsy photo shows the cord only wrapped once and tied very tightly at the back of her neck. That “twice wrapped” idea comes from the final resting place of the cord in the area that formed a furrow and the white line that is visible several inches below it. That white line is common enough in some strangulations that there even exists a term for it -- albeit somewhat obscure. It’s called an “argent line.” It forms during a strangulation when a cord or rope is used on a victim until they have died and the blanching phase has set in. The reason for this is that without blood circulation, any skin surface with pressure on it having the blood in the outer capillary bed pressed out doesn’t have fresh blood return after the pressure is removed. If investigators see this on a corpse, even though the ligature has been removed and hidden or taken away from the scene, they know that the victim died from strangulation.

But the ligature on JonBenet’s neck had the ligature remaining and it was in a different location from where it originally strangled her. Additionally there were petechial hemorrhages (noted by the ME and visible in photos) between the two locations. These are the same petechiae that some point to as evidence of fingernail marks where they are grouped together. But the grouping patterns (agmination) do not resemble known fingernail marks that are obvious in available photos. An explanation for all these things can be found in the book Pathology of Neck Injury, by Peter Vanezis. In it is the following passage:

"It is not unusual in homicidal ligature strangulation to find that there is more than one ligature mark, each of varying intensity and crossing each other, in parallel or at an angle to each other. Together with such an appearance, one quite commonly sees abrasions caused by movement of a ligature across the neck."
​

Does this not describe exactly what is seen on JonBenet’s neck? This accounts for the “areas of petechial hemorrhage and abrasion encompassing an area measuring approximately 3x2 inches” mentioned in the AR.

But the white argent line doesn’t show up in the photo of the back of her neck. It is very prominent in the front and it goes in an upward angle toward the back. It could be that the reason it doesn’t show up in the back is because it converges with and disappears into the ligature furrow, or it could be because the cord was pulled away from her neck in the back when she died. If the latter is the reason, it would be the well-known inverted “V” typically found in suspensions. The upward angle itself is also typical in suspensions. I believe this white line is from the initial strangulation and is what killed her. It indicates that the cord was around her neck in that position for a period of time after death during the blanching phase of postmortem changes. But it wasn’t there long enough for a furrow to have been formed which occurs over a period of hours after death while the pressure of the cord compresses the underlying flesh and swelling occurs around it.

Another thing I feel is important that people tend to overlook is the fraying at some of the cord ends. That type of nylon cord frays when it is cut while under tension. The more tension there is, the more fraying occurs. Look at the end of the short end of the cord around her neck and compare it to the cord ends of the section that tied her wrists together. Especially considering that the wrist cord didn’t really restrict movement of her arms and only serves (along with the tape over her lips) to make it appear she had been restrained and silenced by an intruder, do you think both pieces of cord might have been only one section originally and was cut while it was being pulled?

These and other things we know about are explained by what I believe happened. I haven’t seen or heard anything that would contradict any of it. If you’ve bothered reading this lengthy post and still care to see how I think it happened, read the sequence of events that I believe happened in the following post. If you care to read more, there are links at the bottom to further reading on the subject which much of this is based on.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?226503-Explain-BDI-to-me&p=9981961#post9981961



(Good and decent people are confounded by what appears to them to be pure evil, and when confronted with it their best defense is to deny its existence -- especially when it seems to exist in the home of other good and decent people.)

Thanks for that - I read the link too.

I've have only recently been thinking about this cord in a detailed way. I'm not sure what to make of it but it certainly seems like an odd way to go about strangling someone. It has more the quality of a leash than a weapon. I'm not sure what I think about the scenario you described in the link, it's hard for me to imagine young kids doing that. I tend to assume Kolar has more evidence than he can share and that's why he thinks the blow to the head happened upstairs- but perhaps he's just making assumptions too.

I also find it hard to imagine that John would produce a weapon like this. Or tie her hair into it. It seems to me that the device is the kind of thing a 10 year old boy would come up with. I imagine the police spent a lot of time trying to understand this device and how it was used. Maybe if the rest of the CBS show is released we'll learn more.

 

[Tortoise]

It's simple. Why stage an assault, only to clean up said staged assault? Who are you staging it for, if you then attempt to hide it? If your trying to make it look as ruthless as possible, then why clean her up after and redress her?

You need to know the mindset of the one who did the clean up to answer that. I can think of a few reasons but they might not be correct.

 

[ThinkHard]

I had no idea. And I really can't recall where it was said that the tests on the swabs showed it was blood, maybe someone else knows.
If you are correct it could be that she wet herself and was cleaned with one of those wet wipes for babys-kids?

I was perhaps thinking maybe cleaned off blood rather the urine, but who knows. I do know many cleaners and detergents can glow under black light though.

 

[TexMex]

I had no idea. And I really can't recall where it was said that the tests on the swabs showed it was blood, maybe someone else knows.
If you are correct it could be that she wet herself and was cleaned with one of those wet wipes for babys-kids?

. "Since the autopsy, the police had thought there was semen on JonBenet's upper thighs. Then, on January 15, the CBI came back with the analysis. The substance thought to be semen was in fact smeared blood. There was no semen. JonBenet's body had been wiped clean, leaving a residue that was visible under the fluorescent light at the autopsy" (Schiller PMPT)

 

[ThinkHard]

Thanks for that - I read the link too.

I've have only recently been thinking about this cord in a detailed way. I'm not sure what to make of it but it certainly seems like an odd way to go about strangling someone. It has more the quality of a leash than a weapon. I'm not sure what I think about the scenario you described in the link, it's hard for me to imagine young kids doing that. I tend to assume Kolar has more evidence than he can share and that's why he thinks the blow to the head happened upstairs- but perhaps he's just making assumptions too.

I also find it hard to imagine that John would produce a weapon like this. Or tie her hair into it. It seems to me that the device is the kind of thing a 10 year old boy would come up with. I imagine the police spent a lot of time trying to understand this device and how it was used. Maybe if the rest of the CBS show is released we'll learn more.

I definetly agree with you 100% that the device looks more like a tens year old boys tinker toy then anything else.

 

[madeleine]

I imagine the police spent a lot of time trying to understand this device and how it was used. Maybe if the rest of the CBS show is released we'll learn more.

at this point I honestly doubt it. They have no clue which of the R's did what, how or why moo

 

[madeleine]

To me the timeline of events that makes most sense is:

sexual assault/torture who knows what it really was> scream > bash to the head> finishing off by strangulation ( had time to make the toy since she was unconscious) > cleaning the body > redressing > RN > 911 CALL

can't tell who did what for sure though

 

[madeleine]

. "Since the autopsy, the police had thought there was semen on JonBenet's upper thighs. Then, on January 15, the CBI came back with the analysis. The substance thought to be semen was in fact smeared blood. There was no semen. JonBenet's body had been wiped clean, leaving a residue that was visible under the fluorescent light at the autopsy" (Schiller PMPT)

thanks

 

[ThinkHard]

at this point I honestly doubt it. They have no clue which of the R's did what, how or why moo

I beg to differ. I think the wording of th GJ indictment does indicate to some degree who did what.

 

[dgfred]

I definetly agree with you 100% that the device looks more like a tens year old boys tinker toy then anything else.

I have been thinking about if that 'toy' was choking her... she starts struggling and maybe a scream then smashed on the head to keep quiet. Plus maybe it was pulling her hair too.

 

[johnjay]

I have been thinking about if that 'toy' was choking her... she starts struggling and maybe a scream then smashed on the head to keep quiet. Plus maybe it was pulling her hair too.

Could be, but it's curious how he could have tied it around her neck, catching her hair in the knot, while she was conscious.

 

[Tortoise]

I beg to differ. I think the wording of th GJ indictment does indicate to some degree who did what.

I don't think it does, because a child of Burke's age could not form the intent to commit either of the crimes the indictments accuse the parents of assisting with or being accessory to. So I think it's a grey area.

If it was clear we wouldn't still be discussing it.